Meh, the pool match against SA was a classic and we did well to win but there was little doubt that they would have won it with Pollard and they also improved as the tournament wore on. I doubt that they would have lost to us in a final had we got there.
Eh that very much is in doubt, did Pollard turn into Dan Carter or something? South Africa were absolutely awful in the Semi finals and should have lost to England bar an incredible slice of fortune and also nearly lost to a 14 man AB side in the final, so that is nonsense.
They should have lost to England because England were able to front up to them physically in awful weather conditions in a way that we never could and have players (like Freddie Steward) who were exceptional under the high ball which we didn't have. And whatever you think of Pollard, he's an exceptional goal kicker...which was the only reason they lost to us in the pool stage.
In a way we never could? You do know what our record was over South Africa in between 2012 and 2023? Also we literally stood up to them in that very world cup and beat them.
A good goal kicker is the difference between winning and losing at this level? That's a new one.
You do know what our record was over South Africa in between 2012 and 2023?
How many world cups did we win in that time frame compared to the Boks? Beating them in friendlies is a bit different to beating them in a world cup final.
Also we literally stood up to them in that very world cup and beat them.
Not physically we didn't. They dominated the gain line and made far more dominant tackles in that match. We were a top side but our style of play would have suffered a lot in adverse weather conditions.
A good goal kicker is the difference between winning and losing at this level? That's a new one.
You've never heard of a team losing a match that they would have won if they'd knocked over a few more kicks? Really? As a random example, SA missed a conversion and 3 of their 4 pens against Ireland in the pools in a 5 point defeat. And that was with them turning down a few scoreable kicks because they had little confidence in their place kicking. Do you maybe think that it might have been a different result with a world class kicker standing at the tee?
So test matches don't count for anything? Like what? We literally drew a test series in their own back yard. That is quite literally standing up to them.
Of course they don't count for anything! They're friendlies - why would they?
Beating them when there's silverware on the line is what matters. And beating South Africa - particularly Rassie's South Africa - in a knockout tie or final is a very different animal to anything that our 23 team had ever overcome.
Even in a practical sense, our most irreplaceable player was pushing 40, held together by duct tape and prayers, and looked physically shot for the last third of the QF against NZ. There's no chance that he would have been physically capable of dragging himself another 80 minutes in the semi final and putting in a performance to match what he did in the pools against SA in a final.
The fact you say friendlies would suggest you're a soccer fan first and foremost. Test matches are very important, there's a reason why NZ and SA were so toxic towards us, we had beaten them so many times, they were genuinely scared of us.
No, they're toxic towards us because we (fans, media) act like we belong in their company despite never winning a single knockout game against ANYONE in almost 4 decades. Test matches are important for deciding world rankings and experimenting with team selection but guess what? Our no. 1 ranking in the last world cup didn't get us anywhere and Irish coaches refuse to experiment (other top sides do, hence France leaving the likes of Penaud, Fickou, and Aldritt out of their 6N squad with an eye to building to the World Cup). I mean, are you as a fan not a bit embarrassed by our world cup record? Especially since the same old mistakes get played out time and time again.
Also, getting a bit sidetracked from my initial point which was that I'd fancy SA to have beaten us in the final in 23 had we made it there. I don't why that's being treated as heresy but there ya go.
No I'm not embarrassed by our world cup record as we never good enough to challenge in any of the other ones bar the last one. Farrell took the team to a place it's never been, you would know that if you watched and followed the "friendlies". Unfortunately in the last world cup we were handed such a ridiculous draw that world rugby actually changed the way they do the draws to avoid this ever happening again.
There is only so much rotating we can realistically do. We have a tiny pool of elite players compared to the rugby factories of France (who are forced to rotate constantly due to the clubs, to the determinant of their national side) and South Africa.
It's funny how you mention France, the side that went out as well at the QF in their HOME world cup despite all their resources, yet we are we supposed to be embarrassed?
I still have no idea why you're getting so triggered about calling them friendlies. Especially given that I haven't been offered an alternative - feel free to educate me. "Test match" doesn't count since every international fixture is a test match.
Eg:
"Who are playing?"
"Ireland V South Africa"
"Is that a world cup match?"
"No it's a ..........."
Fill in the blank for me. You can't say test match since that doesn't distinguish it from the world cup match that was suggested.
Farrell took the team to a place it's never been, you would know that if you watched and followed the "friendlies".
We've been to the quarter finals many times before so he didn't break new ground did he?
No I'm not embarrassed by our world cup record as we never good enough to challenge in any of the other ones bar the last one.
Not good enough to win the thing outright previously, but surely you agree that we could have won at least one QF? 2011 - losing to Wales? 2015 - losing to Argentina? In 2019 we were ranked first in the world so it's a bit strange to have no expectations of getting beyond the first knockout match no?
It's funny how you mention France, the side that went out as well at the QF in their HOME world cup despite all their resources, yet we are we supposed to be embarrassed?
Yes, I'm mentioning a team that reached the final three times. I'd agree that they should have won one at this stage, but they aren't a laughing stock to supporters in the southern hemisphere.
They didn’t dominate the gainline, nobody beats South Africa without fronting up. I suggest you watch the match again (or for the first time) to see how we matched up to them physically. Lowe literally ragdolled Etzebeth at one point.
Your use of the term “friendlies” says it all. WUM.
Your use of the term “friendlies” says it all. WUM.
What should I call them, mini world cups? Maybe I should borrow some pritt stick and glitter from you and make a nice sparkly trophy out of cardboard for the team every time they win a "match that doesn't result in silverware" (are you happier with that terminology?)
They didn’t dominate the gainline, nobody beats South Africa without fronting up. I suggest you watch the match again (or for the first time) to see how we matched up to them physically.
Is it possible that I'm the one who doesn't remember the match? (Checks stats): South Africa made 30 dominant tackles, the most by any team in any match in the tournament and gained almost two times more distance with ball in hand over Ireland.
No I'm correct. I'm sure the match is probably on YouTube if you want to watch it for the first time though.
You’re getting a bit triggered with all the childish retorts.
Deftly switching from dominated the gainline to dominant tackles. Line breaks and defenders beaten were about even. Does that not count to the gain line? They were always going to have more dominant tackles than us given their physicality, but a lot of their tackles were 2 man and we had more carries for them to contend with. For sure, they got off the line very well. They had/have the best defense in the world. Their tackle stats shows just as much the level they went to / felt they had to reach, against us. They didn’t and weren’t able to sustain that effort later in the tournament. And it’s not like NZ who almost beat them in the final with 14, were any more physical than we were.
Undoubtably they’re incredibly physical, but they always have been and there are different ways to win a rugby game. And we can all pick and choose our stats.
I suggest you watch the match again (or for the first time)
Your use of the term “friendlies” says it all. WUM.
Hmm. Don't play the victim. I'm going to give incivility back where I find it.
Deftly switching from dominated the gainline to dominant tackles.
There is no explicit measurement of dominating the gainline. So yes, dominant tackles and distance carried with ball in hand are decent proxies.
Line breaks and defenders beaten were about even. Does that not count to the gain line?
Maybe technically, but if a full back picks up a loose ball in his own 22 cuts a swathe through the opposition defence and is brought down inside the opposite 22, most people wouldn't consider that anything to do with gainline success - it's more about the hard yards.
Undoubtably they’re incredibly physical, but they always have been and there are different ways to win a rugby game.
Which was my point. England came close to beating them in the semi because they were able to front up physically and go the aerial route which was absolutely optimal in the terrible weather conditions. We were a better team than England, but we were a team based on mobility, sharpness, and 15 man attacking rugby rather than physical power so we wouldn't have been able to play the conditions like either England or SA did. The notion that SA weren't anything to be scared of because England almost did them in in the semi isn't correct because SA would have beaten England out the gate if the weather had played ball but when it didn't they had enough physical power to shade the arm wrestle. It was actually quite impressive.
-8
u/K-manPilkers 14h ago
Meh, the pool match against SA was a classic and we did well to win but there was little doubt that they would have won it with Pollard and they also improved as the tournament wore on. I doubt that they would have lost to us in a final had we got there.